Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

walshb wrote: »

Very pertinent post, and will certainly lead to the defence using this...

Lol!

"Your honour, I know that there'a a video of Mr. Chavin with his knee on the neck of the victim, slowly killing him........ but have you heard about Balbriggan?"

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find whataboutism isn't a particularly useful legal defence.

It will be a defence...

It happens all the time. Criminals claiming this, that and the other..

Defence will likely bring it in here. That just because Floyd was saying he was in a bad way doesn’t necessarily mean A, that he was, or B, that Chauvin believed him to be in a bad way..

They will want to show that Chauvin did not deliberately continue to apply neck pressure whilst knowing that it was very dangerous to George..

Yes, it transpired that he was in a bad way. But the defence will argue that Chauvin did not deliberately end his life..

People can die from very innocuous restraining. Chauvin was entitled to restrain Floyd.

The defence will argue that this is what happened. Chauvin correctly restrained him, but unfortunately it caused George to suffer... that Chauvin did not at all intend for death.

This is what defenders do. They do all they can to get a win.

Deleted User wrote: »

The doubt has to be reasonable, believing that George Floyd died because of drugs, or a health condition or any other wild claim is not by any measure reasonable when his death coincided with a large male pressing his knee on his neck for nearly 10 minutes as he lay prone on the ground and tried desperately to say he couldn't breathe.

I think one part of the issue here is the erroneous belief from TV and movies that you can choke someone dead in 30 seconds. And thus if George Floyd was "awake" for five minutes then the officer can't have been choking him.

The reality is that in order to actually choke someone dead, you have to be pressing on their throat for 5-15 minutes. They are usually unconscious quite quickly, but that's not always guaranteed. Restricted air and blood flow to the brain over a prolonged period can result in death without immediate unconsciousness.

As you point out, the defence's argument is going to have to be that

a) Kneeling on the neck for a prolonged period is a standard and proportionate technique for restraining a handcuffed suspect.
b) Any other suspect in a reasonable state of health would not have been severely injured by this act.

Even if they can prove the second, the first will be harder.

It's the US though, so if they can get Floyd labelled "criminal" in court, then the bar for the jury is much lower.

In Ireland if a suspect had alerted Gardai to a potential health issue as George Floyd did - around breathing especially - then any act by the Garda which affected breathing would be disproportionate. The onus would be on the Garda to show that they took special precautions in light of the suspect's health concerns.
I don't think that would be a factor in the US though.

paw patrol wrote: »

probably based on that definition but he should face no sanction if accidental.

Accidental deaths are often punishable by law if the death occurred as the result of a direct action by another.

In Ireland we call it manslaughter, in the US they call it 3rd-degree murder.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't see how they can go with murder on it, but my god it will not be well received by the public.

Im personally predicting manslaughter unless they can truly hammer home the toxicology report evidence. The public won't like it but its the right thing to do, 8-10 years.

With the toxicology, the prior interaction, the fact that if you can say you can't breathe then you can breathe, I don't expect any conviction. If there is, it is IMO because the jury bowed to social media and in person pressure from the black supremacy and white knight groups.




It's a pity that the detained man died but there is no way you can say (at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt) given the history of multiple drug abuse and the lethal level of fentanyl in the mans blood, that his death was solely attributable to officer Chauvin's actions.

paw patrol wrote: »

probably based on that definition but he should face no sanction if accidental.

I'm neutral until I hear actual evidence not agenda driven propaganda nor wailing from over emotional grief junkies.

Floyd and chavin are both entitled to a fair hand from justice and the law. Lets hope that happens

Agree.
The reasonable doubt logically presented by the presence of a lethal level of fentanyl should lead to no conviction at all, let alone no murder conviction, imo. But I'm watching the trial in and out during work with great interests.


I also find it funny, btw, that one side is leading with a black lawyer and the other side a white lawyer. The side with the black lawyer is supported by a number of black supremacist groups. America is such a polarized society at this point that I don't see what they are going to do to solve this issue.

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a pity that the detained man died but there is no way you can say (at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt) given the history of multiple drug abuse and the lethal level of fentanyl in the mans blood, that his death was solely attributable to officer Chauvin's actions.

Two autopsies have said otherwise.

paw patrol wrote: »

manslaughter mentions reckless behaviour but not accidental death (i cant find it)

Slipping in the shower is an accident.

Kneeling on someone's neck until they die is no accident

MrStuffins wrote: »

Slipping in the shower is an accident.

Kneeling on someone's neck until they die is no accident

If you kneel on someones neck to restrain them after they have o'd , did you kill them?

ELM327 wrote: »

If you kneel on someones neck to restrain them after they have o'd , did you kill them?

He didn't OD though. You're making that up.

You say so yourself

ELM327 wrote: »

the level of fentanyl in mr floyd's system would be lethal to most people but because of his level of tolerance built up, it wasnt for him.

Pussyhands wrote: »

Was the intent there to kill him though? Did Chauvin think "I'm gonna stay here until the guys dies."?

Pre-meditated murder? We'll see.

What's very clear is that he was killed by the hand of Mr. Chavin. Mr. Chavin did not need to kill him and his actions led to Mr. Floyd's death.

He's culpable.

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

He had the C19 virus.

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a pity that the detained man died but there is no way you can say (at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt) given the history of multiple drug abuse and the lethal level of fentanyl in the mans blood, that his death was solely attributable to officer Chauvin's actions.

You don't have to prove that the officer's actions alone killed him.

Merely that he would not have died if the officer wasn't kneeling on his neck.

Narcotics and health issues aside, the question is, "Would Floyd have died if the officer had not been kneeling on his neck?".

The answer there is pretty obvious - no.

Once you've cleared that out of the way then you need to decide whether the officer kneeling on his neck was an appropriate action.

If it was appropriate, then you can go back to the discussion on narcotics to decide if it was just bad luck.

If it wasn't appropriate, the condition of George Floyd's health is irrelevant.

MrStuffins wrote: »

He didn't OD though. You're making that up.

You say so yourself

I never said he OD'd though,it was a hypothetical thought question. As I'm sure you're aware.

MrStuffins wrote: »

At least you're willing to admit you have a bias.

paw patrol wrote: »

I love your posts , genuinely.
your ability to extract an obscure meaning from selective quote is an art

I tip my hat to you

ELM327 wrote: »

I never said he OD'd though,it was a hypothetical thought question. As I'm sure you're aware.

Mod

Leave it there and back on topic, please.

seamus wrote: »

You don't have to prove that the officer's actions alone killed him.

Merely that he would not have died if the officer wasn't kneeling on his neck.

Narcotics and health issues aside, the question is, "Would Floyd have died if the officer had not been kneeling on his neck?".

The answer there is pretty obvious - no.

Once you've cleared that out of the way then you need to decide whether the officer kneeling on his neck was an appropriate action.

If it was appropriate, then you can go back to the discussion on narcotics to decide if it was just bad luck.

If it wasn't appropriate, the condition of George Floyd's health is irrelevant.

That;s a pretty big disregard.
If it's "pretty obvious" why bother with a trial at all? Let's hang up Officer Chauvin and make him a scapegoat for all america's problems. Like the white knights have already done, tried and convicted before the trial even started.


And before you say that;'s an american thing, we do it here too. Trial by social media.

ELM327 wrote: »

That;s a pretty big disregard.
If it's "pretty obvious" why bother with a trial at all?

Because the question is whether the killing was lawful or unlawful. Of course there is a theoretical, statistical, tiny possibility that if George Floyd hadn't been arrested, he would have just dropped dead on the street.

But the fact that he was walking and talking, then his neck was kneeled on and ten minutes later he was dead, suggests a particularly high probability that's what killed him.

You answer the question - if Floyd had not been stopped by the cops, do you believe with any degree of likelihood he would have just spontaneously dropped dead in those ten minutes?

seamus wrote: »

Because the question is whether the killing was lawful or unlawful. Of course there is a theoretical, statistical, tiny possibility that if George Floyd hadn't been arrested, he would have just dropped dead on the street.

But the fact that he was walking and talking, then his neck was kneeled on and ten minutes later he was dead, suggests a particularly high probability that's what killed him.

You answer the question - if Floyd had not been stopped by the cops, do you believe with any degree of likelihood he would have just spontaneously dropped dead in those ten minutes?

There are also autopsy reports mentioning that it wasn't the drugs that killed him.

seamus wrote: »

Because the question is whether the killing was lawful or unlawful. Of course there is a theoretical, statistical, tiny possibility that if George Floyd hadn't been arrested, he would have just dropped dead on the street.

But the fact that he was walking and talking, then his neck was kneeled on and ten minutes later he was dead, suggests a particularly high probability that's what killed him.

You answer the question - if Floyd had not been stopped by the cops, do you believe with any degree of likelihood he would have just spontaneously dropped dead in those ten minutes?

You or I have no idea what the fentanyl and other drugs would have done to his system.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

kneeling on the neck of someone for nine minutes while they are handcuffed on the ground is nobodies idea of reasonable.

Let's see what the jury decide. Suffice it to say I agree to disagree with you on this one.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It could have been a major contributing factor though........

It wasn't. Both autopsies said so.

This has already been established

MrStuffins wrote: »

It wasn't. Both autopsies said so.

This has already been established

Even though he had a lethal dose in his bloodstream?
Come on.


Lets await the trial before prejudging.

ELM327 wrote: »

Even though he had a lethal dose in his bloodstream?

Correct. This is what the autopsies have shown. Both of them.